Was the absence of fingerprints on the rifle relevant?

[Caroline]

Why does no one ask about the silencer when talking about fingerprints?

Why would they?

[Caroline]

And what about the casings that were destroyed in 1996 against all protocols?

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

Had the casings not been destroyed they could now be fingerprinted using new technology.  They would either reveal JB's, SC's or no prints suggesting a gloved JB.

Or no identifiable prints in which case back to the drawing board.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I know we've been here before. But you can't deny that the gun would have been smothered in Sheila's prints. According to you, she didn't just shoot, she turned the gun around and battered Nevill with it. Every part of that gun would have been covered with Sheila's prints.


This is why Bamber will stay where he is. Because he's a mean son of a bitch. And a raving psychopath.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I totally agree with Puggy.  Had Sheila used the rifle her fingerprints would be the primary ones on it and all over it.  Any fingerprint expert can tell which print is the older print when two prints overlap. 

We know the rifle was used to beat Nevill around the head so there should have been many prints all over it but there weren't. The only explanation for this would be either the perp wore gloves or the rifle was wiped clean before new prints were applied.

Absolutely, John.

It’s patently obvious that in the violent struggle over the rifle between Jeremy and Nevill, one of his gloves would so easily have fallen off. And that’s why he had no option but to wipe the whole rifle clean of all fingerprints as it would have shown Jeremy’s prints overlapping Nevill’s.

That could have been why he was so enraged even after Nevill was dead, and kicked and smashed his dead body about — he was furious he’d had to clean the prints off.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Did Mike Tesko ever publish them ?

I’ve no idea, Nicholas

Mike Tesko was before my time on here, so I know little about him except he seems very odd

[mrswah]

I’ve no idea, Nicholas

Mike Tesko was before my time on here, so I know little about him except he seems very odd

Mike Tesko is on the Blue forum.   AFAIK, he hasn't been on here, but I could be wrong.

[Caroline]

Did Mike Tesko ever publish them ?

There was one from Jeremy and one from Sheila, there were other illegible prints.

[Holly Goodhead]

Why would they?

Why wouldn't they it is after all arguably the most important exhibit.

[Holly Goodhead]

Which part of the Anschutz was textured?  How often was it oiled?  Was it rusty?

Most firearms are treated with a coating which makes it difficult to recover fingerprints from.

[Holly Goodhead]

Or no identifiable prints in which case back to the drawing board.

Why would the brass casings not reveal fingerprints assuming the perp wasn't wearing gloves? 

[Caroline]

Why would the brass casings not reveal fingerprints assuming the perp wasn't wearing gloves?

Because loading them would lead to smudging.

[Caroline]

Why wouldn't they it is after all arguably the most important exhibit.

It would be pointless given how it was handled.

[Holly Goodhead]

Because loading them would lead to smudging.

Not according to a forensic scientist:

Many thanks for your e-mail.    The technology I invented, which is available commercially as CERA, is intended to visualise fingerprints on metals as a result of corrosion caused by the fingerprint sweat, rather than trying to visualise the sweat itself.   This means that fingerprints can be found many years after they were deposited and after the sweat has been removed.  It is unfortunate, therefore, that the casings no longer exist as they are a very good source of corroded fingerprints.  Weapons are treated with a technique to give them a nice finish and to prevent tarnishing (often known as 'bluing').  This effectively prevents fingerprint sweat from corroding the metal, so my technique for fingerprint visualisation is very unlikely to work.  Further, from what you say, there is no audit trial of who has handled the weapon over the past thirty years.  This would make the identification and evidential value of any fingerprints now recovered very problematic.

If I can assist further, please let me know.

Kind regards,

[Nicholas]

Most firearms are treated with a coating which makes it difficult to recover fingerprints from.

Was that the case with the murder weapon in this case Holly or don’t you know

[Nicholas]

Not according to a forensic scientist:

Many thanks for your e-mail.    The technology I invented, which is available commercially as CERA, is intended to visualise fingerprints on metals as a result of corrosion caused by the fingerprint sweat, rather than trying to visualise the sweat itself.   This means that fingerprints can be found many years after they were deposited and after the sweat has been removed.  It is unfortunate, therefore, that the casings no longer exist as they are a very good source of corroded fingerprints.  Weapons are treated with a technique to give them a nice finish and to prevent tarnishing (often known as 'bluing').  This effectively prevents fingerprint sweat from corroding the metal, so my technique for fingerprint visualisation is very unlikely to work.  Further, from what you say, there is no audit trial of who has handled the weapon over the past thirty years.  This would make the identification and evidential value of any fingerprints now recovered very problematic.

If I can assist further, please let me know.

Kind regards,

And another forensic scientist could disagree